Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rana Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 1550
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRA-2156-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-2156-2021
(RANA PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
11
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with N.P. Verma, counsel for
the appellant.
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2, despite compliance of Section 15(A)(iii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case diary perused.
This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 18/03/2021 passed by In-charge Sessions Judge, Anuppur in Bail Application No.98/2021; whereby learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Rana Pratap Singh under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.78/2021 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Anuppur District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(a)(I), 312 of IPC and Section 3(1)w(I) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, who apprehends his arrest in the crime.
As per prosecution case, on 18/02/2021 prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, District Anuppur averring that in the year 2011 she had gone to her maternal grand mother's (Nani) house located at village Harniya, District Anuppur and when she was returning from there and was sitting at Railway Station, appellant came there and taken her to a cabin and committed sexual intercourse with her and he also made a video of his act. It is further alleged that in the year 2018 again when she had visited to her maternal grand mother's house, appellant saw her and by showing her video, Signature Not Verified SAN he again committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened her and Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.08.10 17:43:38 IST 2 CRA-2156-2021 thereafter several times appellant used to call her and made sexual relation with her. When prosecutrix stopped the appellant, he had given an ikrarnama on stamp paper promising her to do marriage and stated her that she is now his wife. In the year 2020 prosecutrix became pregnant and on that appellant assaulted her and gave her a pill, which caused miscarriage. Thereafter, on 13/01/2021 appellant again called her on the pretext that he will delete all her videos. On 14/01/2021 when prosecutrix went to meet her at Railway Colony, Anuppur, appellant again committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and denied to delete the videos and when prosecutrix went to lodge the FIR, appellant threatened her and gave a cheque of Rs.5 lacs and ask her not to make complaint against him. On that, police registered Crime No.78/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(a)(I), 312 of IPC and Section 3(1)w(I) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicant. The appellant filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Anuppur. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecutrix was major and she made sexual relation with the appellant on her own will. Even, prosecutrix entered into compromise with appellant and took Rs.5 lacs and also executed compromise deed in favour of appellant. Even, prosecutrix filed an application before the Police that she wants to withdraw her report lodged against the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that it is alleged that for the first time appellant made sexual relation with the prosecutrix in the year 2011, while prosecutrix lodged the report on 18/02/2021 and there is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. As the prosecutrix was major and she made sexual relation with appellant on her own will, so no offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. The applicant Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.08.10 17:43:38 IST 3 CRA-2156-2021 is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the appellant be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 2019 SC 327 & Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that for the first time appellant committed offence against the prosecutrix in the year 2011, when prosecutrix was minor, so consent of prosecutrix has no value. From the report prima facie it is apparent that appellant committed rape with a minor girl, who belongs to Schedule Class, so offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is clearly made out against the appellant. So, looking to the provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, appellant should not be released on bail.
The facts of the cases Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (supra) & Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) upon which reliance is placed by the counsel for the appellant do not match with the present case. In all these cases prosecutrix was major, while in this case from the FIR it appears that for the first time appellant sexually exploited the prosecutrix in the year 2011. At that time prosecutrix was minor, so offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is clearly made out against the appellant.
The Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 observed:-
"10. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.08.10 17:43:38 IST
4 CRA-2156-2021 unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence."
The Apex Court in Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh, (2014) SCC 521, has observed thus:-
"4. The High Court has not given any finding in the impugned order that an offence under the aforesaid Act is not made out against the respondent and has granted anticipatory bail, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act as well as the aforesaid decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar case, (2012) 8 SCC 795. Hence, without going into the merits of the allegations made against the respondent, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent."
The Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 159 also held that the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, shall not apply to the cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply.
From the above pronouncements of the Apex Court, it is clear that where from the complaint prima facie an offence under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out, the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. shall not apply to the cases. In the present case in the FIR it is clearly mentioned that for the first time in the year 2011 appellant sexually Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.08.10 17:43:38 IST 5 CRA-2156-2021 exploited the prosecutrix, who belongs to SC/ST community and made video of his act and thereafter he blackmailed the prosecutrix and sexually exploited her for long time. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.08.10 17:43:38 IST